warfare, and Abu Bakr chose the view that it is not valid to pledge an offender (jani). This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The basis of the disagreement on this is founded on the disagreement regarding his sale, and the discussion on that has already passed in its place. Furthermore, if the mortgagee was aware of his condition, he has no option, because he entered into it with insight, resembling a buyer when he knows of a defect. If he was not aware, and then learned of it after the apostate has accepted Islam or the offender has been ransomed, it is the same; because the defect has been removed, so it is as if the defect of the sold item was removed. If he learned of it before that, he has the right to reject it and rescind the sale if it was stipulated in a sale contract; because the stipulation required it to be sound, so if it was delivered to him defective, he has the right of rescission, like in a sale. If he chooses to keep it, he has no right to compensation (arsh) or anything else, because if the pledge in its entirety were destroyed before he took possession of it, he would have no right to its substitute, so a part of it is more entitled to this rule. The same applies if he did not know until the slave was killed for apostasy or retaliation (qisas), or was seized for the crime; the mortgagee has no right to compensation. The Qadi mentioned that the analogy of the school is that he has the right to compensation in these instances, by analogy to a sale. This is not the case; for the sold item is a substitute for the price, so if part of it is lost, he regains the portion of the price corresponding to it, and if all of it is lost, such as if the sold item is destroyed before he takes possession, he regains the entire price, whereas the pledge is not a substitute. If it were all destroyed before possession, he would not be entitled to regain anything, so how could he be entitled to regain the substitute for its essence or its partial loss? If the master refuses to ransom the offender, he shall not be compelled to do so, and the slave shall be sold for the crime; because the right of the victim is prioritized over the pledge, so it is similar to if the crime occurred after the pledge. Based on this, if the compensation consumes his value, he is sold and the pledge is void; if it does not consume it, he is sold to the extent of the compensation, and the remainder remains a pledge.

Section: It is valid to pledge a mudabbar (a slave granted post-mortem emancipation), according to the manifest view of the school, based on the permissibility of his sale. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i prohibited it; because he has attached his emancipation to a condition, resembling what if he attached his emancipation to a condition that occurs...